Solving complex social problems from the ground up: A factor model of community motivation to participate in engaged scholarship Katrina Norvell, Visiting Assistant Professor, Providence College [knorvell@providence.edu]
Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary What influences members of community-based organizations (CBOs) to participate in engaged scholarship? Prescriptions for community-engaged scholarship (CES) advise reciprocal relationships between faculty and community partners, even while organizational and institutional cultures and expectations may not be well aligned (Boyer, 1996; O'Meara & Rice, 2005; Saltmarsh et al., 2009; Strand et al., 2003). This dilemma has prompted considerable research regarding facilitators of and barriers to engaged scholarship on the part of faculty and academic institutions (Diamond, 2005; Furco & Holland, 2004; Gelmon & Agre-Kippenhan, 2002; Holland, 1997, 1999; Norvell, 2010; Saltmarsh et al., 2009). Yet little is known about community partners’ motivation to participate in scholarship through their work.
This research paper examines the effect of CBO members’ capacity beliefs, context beliefs, and individual goals on their level of participation in scholarly research. The Norvell (2010) instrument measuring faculty motivation to pursue CES has been adapted to the perspective of community-based partners. A convenience sample of more than 6,000 individuals in CBOs with annual revenues of less than $40,000,000 in the northwest region of the United States were invited to complete the survey. Data were analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis to identify individual practices and beliefs that represent community members' motivation to participate in CES.
Findings of the study explain the beliefs and goals held by community members that facilitate or discourage their participation in CES. Specifically, this study identifies, in concrete terms, characteristics of the organizational and environmental context that community members perceive make CES worthwhile or troublesome. Similarly, findings identify tangible knowledge, skills, and abilities that community members perceive are necessary for them to become equal and successful research partners and scholars. Likewise, individual ambition of community members regarding appropriate steps and approaches to solve complex social problems were discovered.
References Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
Colbeck, C. L., & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006). Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(105), 17–26.
Diamond, R. M. (2005). Scholarship reconsidered: Barriers to change. In K. O’Meara & R. E. Rice (Eds.), Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship (pp. 56–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Furco, A., & Holland, B. A. (2004). Institutionalizing service-learning in higher education: Issues and strategies for chief academic officers. In M. Langseth & W. M. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning (pp. 23–41). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Gelmon, S. B., & Agre-Kippenhan, S. (2002). A developmental framework for supporting evolving faculty roles in community engagement. The Journal of Public Affairs, 6(Supplement 1), 161–182. Article retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. (Accession No. 8657855)
Holland, B. A. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30–41.
Holland, B. A. (1999). Factors and strategies that influence faculty involvement in public service. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 4(1), 37–44.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Norvell, K. H. (2010). Examining community-engaged scholarship in public administration programs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR.
O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E (Eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saltmarsh, J., Giles, D., O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. (2009). Community engagement and institutional culture in higher education: An investigation of faculty reward policies at engaged campuses. In B. Moely, S. Billing, & B. Holland (Eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement: A volume in advances in service-learning research (pp. 3–20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stoecker, R. (2002). Practices and challenges of community-based research [Special issue]. The Journal of Public Affairs, 6(Supplement 1), 219–239.
Vernon, A., & Ward, K. (1999). Campus and community partnerships: Assessing impacts and strengthening connections. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 55–65.
Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. AHSE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(5).
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:
Katrina Norvell, Visiting Assistant Professor, Providence College [knorvell@providence.edu]
Alisha Lund-Chaix, Principal, Lund-Chaix Consulting [al@lund-chaix.com]
Keywords: Community partner motivation, capacity beliefs, context beliefs, individual goals, confirmatory factor analysis
Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary
What influences members of community-based organizations (CBOs) to participate in engaged scholarship? Prescriptions for community-engaged scholarship (CES) advise reciprocal relationships between faculty and community partners, even while organizational and institutional cultures and expectations may not be well aligned (Boyer, 1996; O'Meara & Rice, 2005; Saltmarsh et al., 2009; Strand et al., 2003). This dilemma has prompted considerable research regarding facilitators of and barriers to engaged scholarship on the part of faculty and academic institutions (Diamond, 2005; Furco & Holland, 2004; Gelmon & Agre-Kippenhan, 2002; Holland, 1997, 1999; Norvell, 2010; Saltmarsh et al., 2009). Yet little is known about community partners’ motivation to participate in scholarship through their work.
This research paper examines the effect of CBO members’ capacity beliefs, context beliefs, and individual goals on their level of participation in scholarly research. The Norvell (2010) instrument measuring faculty motivation to pursue CES has been adapted to the perspective of community-based partners. A convenience sample of more than 6,000 individuals in CBOs with annual revenues of less than $40,000,000 in the northwest region of the United States were invited to complete the survey. Data were analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis to identify individual practices and beliefs that represent community members' motivation to participate in CES.
Findings of the study explain the beliefs and goals held by community members that facilitate or discourage their participation in CES. Specifically, this study identifies, in concrete terms, characteristics of the organizational and environmental context that community members perceive make CES worthwhile or troublesome. Similarly, findings identify tangible knowledge, skills, and abilities that community members perceive are necessary for them to become equal and successful research partners and scholars. Likewise, individual ambition of community members regarding appropriate steps and approaches to solve complex social problems were discovered.
References
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
Colbeck, C. L., & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006). Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(105), 17–26.
Diamond, R. M. (2005). Scholarship reconsidered: Barriers to change. In K. O’Meara & R. E. Rice (Eds.), Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship (pp. 56–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Furco, A., & Holland, B. A. (2004). Institutionalizing service-learning in higher education: Issues and strategies for chief academic officers. In M. Langseth & W. M. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning (pp. 23–41). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Gelmon, S. B., & Agre-Kippenhan, S. (2002). A developmental framework for supporting evolving faculty roles in community engagement. The Journal of Public Affairs, 6(Supplement 1), 161–182. Article retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. (Accession No. 8657855)
Holland, B. A. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30–41.
Holland, B. A. (1999). Factors and strategies that influence faculty involvement in public service. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 4(1), 37–44.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Norvell, K. H. (2010). Examining community-engaged scholarship in public administration programs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR.
O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E (Eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saltmarsh, J., Giles, D., O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. (2009). Community engagement and institutional culture in higher education: An investigation of faculty reward policies at engaged campuses. In B. Moely, S. Billing, & B. Holland (Eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement: A volume in advances in service-learning research (pp. 3–20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stoecker, R. (2002). Practices and challenges of community-based research [Special issue]. The Journal of Public Affairs, 6(Supplement 1), 219–239.
Vernon, A., & Ward, K. (1999). Campus and community partnerships: Assessing impacts and strengthening connections. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 55–65.
Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. AHSE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(5).
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below: